Build Them Schools, Not Bombs?” — Why That Argument Is a Moral Illusion Nigeria Cannot Afford
In times of prolonged insecurity, emotionally appealing arguments often gain traction, especially when framed as moral high ground. One such argument, recently echoed again in Nigeria’s public discourse, is the claim that the money spent on bombing terrorists should instead be used to build them schools. On the surface, it sounds humane, progressive, and compassionate. But beneath that polished veneer lies a dangerously misleading narrative—one that misunderstands the nature of terrorism, distorts the role of education, and risks normalizing surrender in the face of organized violence.
This argument is not merely naïve; it is morally flawed, strategically unsound, and historically inaccurate. It collapses under even the lightest scrutiny when confronted with the realities of Nigeria’s security crisis and the global history of violent extremism.
Terrorism Is Not an Education Deficit — It Is an Ideological War
The most fundamental error in the “schools not bombs” argument is the assumption that terrorism is primarily caused by lack of education. This is a comforting myth, but it is not supported by evidence.
Boko Haram, ISWAP, armed bandit networks, and insurgent warlords are not random illiterate villagers who accidentally stumbled into violence because they missed primary school. They are structured, armed, funded, and ideologically driven groups. Many of their leaders are educated. Some studied abroad. Others were once teachers, clerics, traders, or civil servants.
Boko Haram’s founding ideology was not ignorance—it was rejection. Rejection of Western education, rejection of the Nigerian state, rejection of pluralism, and rejection of modern civilization. Their name itself, loosely translated, declares that Western education is forbidden. To argue that the same group can be pacified by building them schools is not just ironic—it is logically incoherent.
You cannot cure an ideology that despises education by offering it more classrooms.
You Do Not Negotiate Classrooms With Kalashnikovs
Terrorists are not sitting at a negotiation table waiting for chalkboards. They are holding assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and machine guns. They are kidnapping schoolchildren, burning classrooms, murdering teachers, and turning schools into mass graves.
Nigeria does not lack examples. From Chibok to Dapchi, from Kankara to Tegina, schools have repeatedly been targeted—not because terrorists want education, but because they want to destroy it.
The grim truth is this:
You do not build libraries for people who are actively burning villages.
You do not offer textbooks to men who make a living from kidnapping children.
You do not replace bullets with blackboards while the bullets are still flying.
This is not compassion. It is denial.
Security Is the Foundation of Education, Not the Other Way Around
One of the most overlooked realities in this debate is a simple but uncomfortable fact: schools cannot exist without security.
No teacher will accept a posting to a village controlled by armed groups.
No parent will send their child to a classroom under the shadow of AK-47s.
No government can sustain education infrastructure in territories ruled by gunmen.
Education does not create security in active war zones. Security creates the space in which education becomes possible.
When terrorist camps are dismantled, when bandit enclaves are neutralized, and when highways are made safe, schools follow naturally. Teachers return. Students resume learning. Communities rebuild.
Bombs, in this context, are not the opposite of schools—they are often the prerequisite for schools.
Bombing Terrorist Camps Is Not “Wasted Money”
Another dangerous framing in this argument is the portrayal of military action as wasteful spending. This framing ignores what is being prevented.
When a terrorist camp is destroyed, it is not just infrastructure that is eliminated—it is future massacres that are stopped. It is schoolchildren in Zamfara who are spared abduction. It is farmers in Kaduna who are allowed to harvest their crops. It is traders in Katsina who return home alive. It is commuters on the Abuja–Kaduna highway who avoid becoming ransom statistics.
The cost of inaction is always higher than the cost of intervention.
Every successful airstrike that dismantles a terrorist network saves lives that will never make the headlines because tragedy was prevented, not recorded.
The Moral Trap: Confusing Mercy With Surrender
The most dangerous aspect of the “build schools instead of bombs” argument is that it disguises surrender as moral superiority.
True compassion protects victims—not perpetrators.
When moral outrage is directed more at military expenditure than at the terrorists murdering civilians, something has gone terribly wrong. When empathy is extended disproportionately to those holding the country hostage, while victims are reduced to statistics, society has fallen into a moral trap.
History is unambiguous on this point: violent extremist movements do not stop because they are educated into submission. They stop when they are decisively defeated, isolated, and stripped of their capacity to inflict harm.
After that—and only after that—rehabilitation, reintegration, education, and economic rebuilding can begin.
Global Precedent: No Nation Educated Its Way Out of Active Insurgency
There is no serious global example of a country ending an active terrorist insurgency solely through education programs while violence was ongoing.
The United States did not defeat ISIS by opening schools in Raqqa before dismantling the caliphate.
Colombia did not defeat FARC by building universities in rebel-controlled jungles.
Sri Lanka did not end the Tamil Tigers by offering scholarships during suicide bombings.
Every successful counterterrorism strategy followed the same sequence:
1. Restore security
2. Defeat armed groups
3. Stabilize territory
4. Then rebuild with education and development
Reversing this order is not progressive—it is reckless.
Nigeria’s Reality Demands Clarity, Not Comforting Slogans
Nigeria’s insecurity is not theoretical. It is lived daily by millions. Communities are displaced. Schools are shut down not for lack of funding, but because teachers have fled and children have been kidnapped.
To suggest that bombs should be replaced with schools while terrorists are still active is to ignore the lived experience of victims. It is to speak from a place of safety while others bury their dead.
Education is vital. No serious person disputes that. But education cannot be weaponized as a substitute for law enforcement, military action, and state authority.
First Peace, Then Progress
The correct framework is not bombs or schools. It is bombs then schools.
You restore order.
You neutralize threats.
You secure communities.
Then you invest massively in education, economic opportunity, and social development.
Anything else is not peace-building—it is appeasement.
Conclusion: Compassion Must Not Become Cowardice
The argument that Nigeria should stop bombing terrorists and instead build them schools may sound humane, but it collapses under the weight of reality. It misdiagnoses the problem, undermines victims, and risks legitimizing violent extremism.
You cannot educate people who are actively holding a nation hostage.
You cannot build schools in territories ruled by fear.
You cannot reason with an ideology that celebrates destruction.
Security is not the enemy of development—it is its foundation.
Until that truth is accepted, Nigeria risks confusing compassion with cowardice and morality with surrender. And that is a cost far higher than any bomb.
0 Comments